Precedent, a decision is a precedent of its own features. Further, the enunciation of the reason or principle on which a question before a court has been decided is alone binding as a precedent, Uttaranchal Road Transport Corporation v. Mansaram Nainwal, (2000) 6 SCC 366.
A precedent acquirers added authority from lapse of time, the longer a precedent has remained unquestioned, the more hard it becomes to reverse it. The courts has to adopt a construction of law, which would inevitably result in upsetting titles long founded on the contrary view, Pratap Bahadur Sahi v. Lakshmidhar Singh, AIR 1946 PC 189: 73 IA 231; Vijaya Charari v. Khubchand, AIR 1964 SC 1099.
Precedent, are not an immutable dogma. Courts may evolve principles which are applicable to the facts involved in each case, Rumana Begum v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, 1992 Cr LJ 3512.
Means every judgment must be based upon facts, declared by the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to be relevant and duly proved. But when a Judge, in deciding a case, follows a precedent, he only regards himself bound by the principle underlying the judgment but not by the facts of that case, Tribhuvandas v. Ratilal, (1968) 2 SCJ 92.
Means the courts may evolve principles which are applicable to the facts involved in each case, Rumana Begum v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, (1992) Cr LJ 3512.
Precedent, when not binding. If is rendered in ignorance of a statute or a rule having the force of statute, Young v. Bristol Aeroplane Co. Ltd., (1944) KB 729: (1944) 2 All ER 293.
Precedents, authorities or examples to be followed by courts of justice. Each of the three superior courts of Common Law was by the practice of the law bound to follow a decision of its own or of either of the others on a point of law, and a decision of its own on a point of practice; but it was not bound to follow the decisions of another co-ordinate court on a point of practice. The same rules prevailed in the Courts of Equity. The Divisions of the High Court being parts of one and the same court, each Division ordinarily considers itself bound by the decision of the other Divisions upon points of practice as well as of law; and so of each Divisional court; but in more than one case where there was no appeal, a Divisional Court, inclined to disagree with a prior judgment of another Divisional Court upon the same point, has been strengthened in number, and so strengthened, has declined to follow such prior judgment. See Winyard v. Toogood, (1882) 52 LJMC 25.
The House of Lords is absolutely bound by its own prior decisions, although decided, on an equality of votes, in the negative, and nothing but an Act of Parliament will remove them, London Tramways Co. v. London County Council, 1898 AC 75. The deci-sions of a judge at Nisi Prius are not considered binding.
The decisions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council are not binding on the High Court, though of course treated with great respect.
Scottish [see Hoyle v. Hitchman, (1879) 4 QBD 423] and Irish [see London and North Western Ry. Co. v. Skerton, (1864) 33 LJMC 158] decisions are treated with respect in the English Courts and differed from with reluctance. The differing from the Scots decision in Hoyle v. Hitchman led to the passing of s. 2(a) of the (English) Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1879. In London and North Western Ry. Co. v. Skerton three judges of the Court of Queen's Bench, being themselves in doubt as to the construction of s. 46 of the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, followed two Irish cases. In Chislett v. Macbeth & Co., (1909) 2 KB 815, Farwell, L.J., said: 'It is desirable that the decisions in the Scottish Court and in the Courts of this country should, if possible, be uniform'; approved by Lord Shaw, ib., 1910 AC 224. Consult Mews's Digest, tit. 'Decided Cases,' and Chitty on Contracts.
The term 'precedents' is also used to designate the collections of pleadings, such as Bullen and Leake's Precedents of Pleadings, or of forms of wills, settlements, leases, mortgages, and other documents in ordinary use which are made and published from time to time as models which a practitioner can safely follow, after adaptation so far as necessary to his own particular case. See Davidson's Precedents in Conveyancing; Bythewood and Jarman; Key and Elphinstone, Prideaux, Encyclop'dia of Forms and Precedents, and others. For an historical notice of Forms of Assurance and Precedents, see Davidson's Prec. in Conveyancing, vol. i. ch. i. For precedents of documents in company matters, see Palmer's Stiebel's, or Gore-Brown's Company Precedents.
Authority of judicial decision of superior courts to be followed a decision is only an authority for what it actually decides. What is of the essence in a decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein nor what logically follows from the various observations made in it. It is not proper to extract a sentence here and there from a judgment and to build upon it, State of Orissa v. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra, AIR 1968 SC 647.
A precedent is not binding if it was rendered in ignorance of a statute or a rule having the force of statute namely, when it is a judgment per incuriam, Sardari Lal Gupta v. Siri Krishan Aggarwal, AIR 1984 P&H 439.
The Supreme Court can go back on previous decisions, Vidyacharan Shuklai v. Khubchand Baghel, AIR 1964 SC 1099.
When it appears to a Single Judge or a Division Bench that there are conflicting decisions of other High Courts in India which are strongly persuasive and take a different view from the view which prevails in his or their High Court, or that a question of law of importance arises in the trial of a case, the Judge or the Bench should passes an order that the papers be placed before the Chief Justice with a request to form a special or Full Bench to hear and dispose of the case or the questions raised in the case, Tribhovandas Purshottamdas Thakkar v. Ratilal Motilal Patel, AIR 1968 SC 372.
A Division Bench where it is unable to accept as correct the principle laid down in an earlier Divi-sion Bench should refer the matter to a Full Bench, Ramashrey Roy v. Pashupati Kumar Pathak, AIR 1968 Pat 1.
Precedents should be 'stepping-stones' and not 'halting places.' But a change in the composition in the court should not automatically result in a change in its rulings, Punjab University v. Vijay Singh Lamba, AIR 1976 SC 1441: (1976) 3 SCC 344: (1976) Supp SCR 67.
Precedents keep the law predictable and so more or less ascertainable. Lord Chancellor Hailsham very appropriately summed up the English practice when he said in Cassell & Co. Ltd. v. Broome. Their lordships regard the use of precedents (1) as an indispensable foundation upon which to decide what is the law and its application to individual cases. It provides at least some degree of certainty upon which individuals can rely in the conduct
of their affairs, as well as a basis for orderly development of legal rules, Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh, AIR 1985 SC (1985) 1 SCC 91: (1985) 1 SCR 1059.